So I was listening to a Podcast today, and they were covering Michael Cohen possibly turning on Trump as part of the Mueller probe.

Now, whether you believe that or not, the guest (a former prosecutor) said that "men like him hate to be 'rats,' a phrase prosecutors hate because it implies not following the law is a bad thing."

This got me thinking: is being a rat or whistleblower or stooge immoral? Is not being one immoral? Where is the line? Is it bad when it's only for self-preservation ("a rat") or are whistleblowers who proactively come forward against a person, persons, or company the same?

What say you?

I think the whole anti-whistleblower thing was invented by powerful people to keep themselves in power, suppress people below them and generation after generation of morons abide by this transparent powerplay and even invent even more idiotic slogans like "snitches get stitches" to justify their idiocy.

The only time it's noble is if you're in a small circle of people and you're sparing people you care about, but to protect employers of wrongdoing, or worse yet, institutions, I can't imagine a more cowardly decision. Anytime you see somebody celebrate this like, "He didn't rat. He's a real man," know that person is a fucking imbecile, or somebody that would benefit from such a hierarchy of soldiers taking the fall for generals, either metaphorically, or sometimes, literally.

It's the right thing to do, when you're saying something when an act is undeniably bad or wrong. Obviously taking into account whether you're inherently a good person or not.

If you're a scumbag, that exists in a world full of scumbags and crooks, it's a different story. Whether that's at the lower end of the social ecological scale and drugs, violence and crime and abuse are ways of life or whether it's corporate and/or political, it doesn't matter - scumbags exists everywhere. And there's a pretty good chance, there's some sort of unwritten code regarding speaking out, especially to a higher power or the police. So there's a good chance, speaking out is solely for self-preservation in this case.

Apr 24, 2018 23:36:15 GMT KJ said:

So I was listening to a Podcast today, and they were covering Michael Cohen possibly turning on Trump as part of the Mueller probe.

Now, whether you believe that or not, the guest (a former prosecutor) said that "men like him hate to be 'rats,' a phrase prosecutors hate because it implies not following the law is a bad thing."

This got me thinking: is being a rat or whistleblower or stooge immoral? Is not being one immoral? Where is the line? Is it bad when it's only for self-preservation ("a rat") or are whistleblowers who proactively come forward against a person, persons, or company the same?

What say you?

It's always bad to betray someone, it is a question of whether your confession comes from a moral desire to put something right or from self interest.
Now if it is morality, then the person in question shouldn't be seeking protection from prosecution.

My problem with whistle-blower laws is someone can make millions from riding the corruption train, then when they see the tide is turning they are rewarded for being the first person to the exit.
And Kilgore nobody likes snitches, because there is nothing honorable about it. If you are offended or upset and conduct raise it through the proper channels first  before you run behind someone's back.

I had a situation where someone I knew was doing something they know they shouldn't have been doing... (I won't elaborate further) I went to them and told them I saw them and said that I hoped they would do the right thing and confess to the people they had lied to... They did, I don't know if I would have snitched but you have to give people the opportunity first.

Apr 26, 2018 23:53:48 GMT iNCY said:

And Kilgore nobody likes snitches, because there is nothing honorable about it. If you are offended or upset and conduct raise it through the proper channels first  before you run behind someone's back.

Often whistleblowing is a reaction to the failure of going through "proper channels."

Even if it wasn't, I put quotations on "proper channels" because if the would be whistleblower is offended by a crime, is the proper channel really saying cut it out to fucking criminals? If a company isn't reporting something like polluting drinking water, or something objectively reprehensible like that, should they go to a boss and say, "Maybe don't poison citizens" or should they contact the law and do everything they can to send that person to prison?

Upon reading this thread, I'm reminded of this bit by this dead old fuck.



There is nothing immoral that I can find in whistleblowing on an institution or group that bring harm to people on a wide-scale. However, there is nothing more lame than snitching for personal gain, or irrational fear, especially on friends and family.

One is morally right, the other is just acting out as a dirty filthy rat (or a weasel, you take your pick).